I really prefer the longer (and more accurate) titles. The example given is a little academic to begin with - at what point do we really need to use 7 film references? - and, to be honest, both versions seem equally unreadable to me. Also, using the longer titles avoids exactly the problems introduced (and solved differently) by the shortened ones, so I don't think we'd win anything by taking that route. -- Cid Highwind 19:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I also preefer the longer titles. After all, those are the proper ones. And if we ain't proper, what is we? -- Sulfur 20:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

On pages that might only reference the films once or twice, i'd say six-of-one, half-a-dozen of the other. But on some pages like USS Enterprise-A I really do think it would be an improvement. Lastly, hovering your mouse over one of the links will still show the full name of the film in the tool-tip. —MJBurrage • TALK • 23:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

No we have to change all the film templates in the articles ??? Thats bad.– Tom 06:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The title of the film is Star Trek, not Star Trek (2009). This change needs to be reverted. For another thing, many pages already say things like "so-and-so is in 2009's Star Trek." It's pretty redundant to have it say "so-and-so is in 2009's Star Trek (2009). So, yah, needs to be reverted. I'll do it when I get home, just bringing it up here in case anyone has a problem with it, though since it screws everything up, I don't think anyone will. --137.155.12.76 16:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Why do the links to 2009's Star Trek say Star Trek (film) instead of Star Trek, like they're supposed to? As with Star Trek (2009), the name of the film is not Star Trek (film); the "(film)" part is merely a qualifier for the movie's article and should not be included in the title link. --From Andoria with Love 23:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

This has been resolved, for the record. Ok, moving on. --From Andoria with Love 03:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)